4 replies to this topic

[Sexpat]

"The Centre for the Resolution of Emergency Situations is preparing to take drastic action to deal with any armed "terrorists" it finds at Ratchaprasong intersection mixing with ordinary protesters.

''The public needs the CRES to take action against unlawful protests and terrorists,'' centre spokesman Sansern Kaewkamnerd said yesterday.''The public is expecting us to take action. But the action needs to be taken at an appropriate time and we have to abide by government policy.''

Col Sansern urged the red shirt demonstrators to stay away from the Ratchaprasong rally ground and asked anyone who left for Songkran celebrations in their home provinces not to return to the rally site.''Let me stress that the rally ground at Ratchaprasong is not safe. Troops and protesters may fall victim to violence.''

He said firearms had disappeared during the clash between troops and anti-government red shirts on Saturday. They might have fallen into the wrong hands.The government believes the red shirts are working with the armed men or they may have been infiltrated.Among the firearms and other equipment claimed to have been lost during the clash were nine M16 rifles, 25 Tavor rifles, six anti-aircraft guns, 116 shields, 105 batons and 80 body armour suits.

The army also lost control of six personnel carriers and three high-mobility multi-purpose vehicles when troops abandoned them in the face of angry red shirts.Ammunition also went missing, including 580 rubber bullet rounds, 600 anti-aircraft rounds and 8,182 M16 rifle rounds. Col Sansern also denied reports that the government was preparing to crack down on the protesters during April 19-21."

http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/local/3611...orists-in-crowd

[Bob]

When they had weeks to prepare the troops used for essentially riot control, one wonders who the person was that allowed any to show up in Bangkok with anti-aircraft rounds. Weird.

[Hedda]

"The Centre for the Resolution of Emergency Situations is preparing to take drastic action to deal with any armed "terrorists" it finds at Ratchaprasong intersection mixing with ordinary protesters."

The frightening thing is that they said exactly the same thing in 1973, 1976 and 1992, except the "terrorists" were usually labeled communists and radical republicans back then. No matter the label, they all led to shooting people in the streets. Since the vast majority of Thais under 40 are taught little if anything about these bloody lessons, one has to wonder if they are blindly falling into the same fate, failing to realize that the mini-war last Saturday night may just have been the first fire fight in a much bigger battle to come.

Most students of recent Thai history recognize that the bloody suppression of protesters in 1992 came under remarkably similar circumstance to the present situation. Like Abhisit, protesters claimed that PM Suchinda was the illegitimate result of an army-coerced coalition government. Then as now, demands were made for constitutional reform, dissolution of parliament and resignation of the prime minister.

Prime minister Suchinda repeatedly stated that he would not order a violent crackdown on protesters but in the early morning hours of May 17, 1992, when many of an estimated 100,000 protesters had gone home to sleep, armed troops opened fire on the remaining crowd, as government-controlled TV reported falsely that unidentified elements had tried to attack Chitrlada Palace.

Amazingly, the army attack did not deter an estimated 150,000 protesters from gathering agains the following night to renew the protest. It also did not prevent troops from resuming their assaults with rifles, machine guns and SWAT snipers on roof tops systematically gunning down protesters, almost nothing of which was reported on TV. Instead, Suchinda appeared again on screen with coalition members Banharn, Narong and Samak to say that anti-royalists and communists were being put "under control." As a third night of military attacks appeared imminent, the palace finally called the prime minister and protest leader to that famous appearance on TV.

A lot has changed since 1992. One of the most significant and perhaps decisive differences is that the reporting of events back then was entirely within the control of government-run radio and TV, no contrary voices, few mobile phones, no internet and scant international scrutiny. As a result, unarmed protesters, their leaders and the public, largely unaware of rapidly moving events, were unable to react to armed violence until it was too late for anything but post-mortem assessments.

That situation is dramatically different now, with virtually instant communications among well-organized and well-armed protesters, opposition TV and radio, and the glare of an international press curious to explore all. The unanswered question is whether Abhisit and the ultra-royalists urging him to launch another violent crackdown realize like Dylan that things have changed.

[TheYenta]

Although the history and comparisons from 1976 and 1992 are not encouraging, I still hope that all of these warnings about more "drastic action" by the government are designed as part of a negotiating tactic to force some political settlement that involves quick elections but allows Abhisit to save face and stay as prime minister in the interim. His big problem is that he and his party are probably going to get wiped out in the elections.

[B.I.G.]

....the glare of an international press curious to explore all.

An example of which is today's editorial in the Washington Post which suggests that prompt elections in Thailand are the only way out of the political impasse and accuses Abhisit of "stalling" the inevitable.

Here's the Post's interesting summarization of the situation, which indicates that somebody is doing their homework:

"After a military coup removed the populist leader in 2006, his supporters easily won the election that was eventually held in December 2007. After two more prime ministers were forced from office by demonstrations and questionable court rulings in late 2008, Mr. Abhisit brought the anti-Thaksin forces to power without calling a new election. He has resisted holding one since, for the obvious reason that Mr. Thaksin's supporters probably would win once again."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...0041404391.html